In the specific case of pirates... the difference is that the patents cover generic process, while the copyright infringement uses a specific instance. So a given song, aka a sequence of notes and lyric, or a character, or a book, can all be infringed, but if someone makes a similar song, character or book, it is not copyright infringement. Think of all the pop songs that sound basically the same, or the hundreds of books that are basically reworkings of Tolkien or The DaVinci Code - they don't infringe. The patent version would be "using strings (e.g. guitars, bass guitars, banjos, violins, etc) to convey sequences of notes to auditory receptors" and anyone who made music would be sued for patent violations. Note the vagueness - any stringed instrument qualifies, and sequence of notes qualifies, live and recorded music qualifies. This is not mental gymnastics, it is simply a question of what scope makes sense.
Comments
In the specific case of pirates... the difference is that the patents cover generic process, while the copyright infringement uses a specific instance. So a given song, aka a sequence of notes and lyric, or a character, or a book, can all be infringed, but if someone makes a similar song, character or book, it is not copyright infringement. Think of all the pop songs that sound basically the same, or the hundreds of books that are basically reworkings of Tolkien or The DaVinci Code - they don't infringe. The patent version would be "using strings (e.g. guitars, bass guitars, banjos, violins, etc) to convey sequences of notes to auditory receptors" and anyone who made music would be sued for patent violations. Note the vagueness - any stringed instrument qualifies, and sequence of notes qualifies, live and recorded music qualifies. This is not mental gymnastics, it is simply a question of what scope makes sense.